Legacy: Considering the Kennedy-Andropov gambit

posted at 2:22 pm on August 31, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Now that Ted Kennedy has been eulogized and buried, no one can complain about the examination of his life in the public sphere as inappropriate. From the beginning, Kennedy’s critics have discussed his failures and cowardice at Chappaquiddick, and that certainly belongs in any discussion of Kennedy’s life. However, another episode relates much more directly to Kennedy’s public career and should get a great deal more examination now — his effort to enlist Yuri Andropov as an ally of the Democratic Party against Ronald Reagan in 1983. Peter Robinson reviews the incident for Forbes:

“On 9-10 May of this year,” the May 14 memorandum explained, “Sen. Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant [John] Tunney was in Moscow.” (Tunney was Kennedy’s law school roommate and a former Democratic senator from California.) “The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.”

Kennedy’s message was simple. He proposed an unabashed quid pro quo. Kennedy would lend Andropov a hand in dealing with President Reagan. In return, the Soviet leader would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election. “The only real potential threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations,” the memorandum stated. “These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign.” …

Kennedy’s motives? “Like other rational people,” the memorandum explained, “[Kennedy] is very troubled by the current state of Soviet-American relations.” But that high-minded concern represented only one of Kennedy’s motives.

“Tunney remarked that the senator wants to run for president in 1988,” the memorandum continued. “Kennedy does not discount that during the 1984 campaign, the Democratic Party may officially turn to him to lead the fight against the Republicans and elect their candidate president.”

One might think that the press would take more interest in this subject. Kennedy offered to get Andropov on American television by pushing networks to visit Moscow and give the former KGB chief airtime. Kennedy wanted Andropov to counter Reagan’s assertion that the Soviet Union was an evil empire. Kennedy also wanted Andropov to push for nuclear disarmament, which would have allowed the Soviets to survive much longer than they did against Reagan’s economic warfare.

Even putting aside who the Soviets were, this is a despicable tactic for any American politician. We pride ourselves on our freedom from foreign influences on our elections. Kennedy tried to set up a mechanism for just that influence for partisan gain — and apparently for personal gain as well. Kennedy didn’t run for President in 1988, in any event, but the fact that he relayed his ambitions to a foreign potentate and begged for his assistance should be enough to blacken Kennedy’s political reputation for good, or at least everywhere outside of Massachusetts.

But selling out to the Soviets in such a fashion comes dangerously close to treason. The Soviets weren’t just some other nation a hemisphere away. In the 1980s, they were our mortal enemies, and almost ready to collapse. Kennedy didn’t just offer to allow our enemy to manipulate our elections, but offered to take positive action for them to succeed in that effort.

That’s more than just personal cowardice and betraying the trust of a young woman, resulting in her death. Morally if not legally, the Andropov gambit was a betrayal of American independence and security by a high-ranking politician. It should stand as a singular denunciation of Kennedy as a power-hungry, contemptible politician. Like in Chappaquiddick, the only reason it hasn’t is because of his family name.

Update: Paul Kengor, who wrote about this at length in a 2006 book, gives more background on the memo at The American Thinker:

With Kennedy’s death, this stunning revelation is again making the rounds, especially after Rush Limbaugh flagged it in his “Stack of Stuff.” I’m being inundated with emails, asking basically two questions: 1) is the document legitimate; and 2) what does it allege of Senator Kennedy?

First off, yes, the document is legitimate. If it were not, I would have never reported it. Over the years, from my book to radio and web interviews, I’ve provided specifics. Briefly summarized, here are the basics:

The document was first reported in a February 2, 1992 article in the London Times, titled, “Teddy, the KGB and the top secret file,” by reporter Tim Sebastian. Russian President Boris Yeltsin had opened the Soviet archives. Sebastian discovered the document in the Central Committee archives specifically. When his article appeared in the Times, other on-site researchers dashed to the archives and grabbed their own copy. Those archives have been resealed.

The Times merely quoted the document and ran a tiny photo of its heading. Once I got ahold of it later, I published the entire text (English translation) in my book.

Importantly, when I published the document, Senator Kennedy’s office didn’t dispute its authenticity, instead ambiguously (and briefly) arguing with its “interpretation.” This was clever. The senator’s office didn’t specify whether this interpretation problem was a matter of my personal misunderstanding of the document or the misunderstanding of the document’s author, Chebrikov. Chebrikov couldn’t be reached for comment; he was dead.

Andropov makes Putin look like a choir boy. The embodiment of the Evil Empire that Reagan espoused. Kennedy was perfectly willing to negotiate with evil men at the expense of national security in exchange for personal power.

But selling out to the Soviets in such a fashion comes dangerously close to treason. The Soviets weren’t just some other nation a hemisphere away. In the 1980s, they were our mortal enemies, and almost ready to collapse. Kennedy didn’t just offer to allow our enemy to manipulate our elections, but offered to take positive action for them to succeed in that effort.

What do you mean dangerously close? In 1983, we were sending people to jail for less overt attempts at undermining the nation.

Let’s face it, if it were up to Teddy, we would have had a Politburo here, we would have a one-party, totalitarian government and the politicians would run/own everything.

Kind of the direction Obama is going right now, come to think of it.

NoDonkey on August 31, 2009 at 2:28 PM

Which reminds me… didn’t Teddy Chivas do the opening to a biography of Henry A. Wallace, American Dreamer? Wallace was a total Soviet stooge, which is why FDR was forced to drop him as VP for his 4th term in favor of Truman.

Here’s the text of the letter from KGB Chief Chebrikov to Yuri Andropov, May 14, 1983.

Special Importance Committee on State Security of the USSR 14.05.1983 No. 1029 Ch/OV Moscow Regarding Senator Kennedy’s request to the General Secretary of the Communist Party Comrade Y.V. Andropov Comrade Y.V. Andropov

On 9-10 May of this year, Senator Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant J. Tunney was in Moscow. The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov:

Senator Kennedy, like other rational people, is very troubled by the current state of Soviet-American relations. Events are developing such that this relationship coupled with the general state of global affairs will make the situation even more dangerous. The main reason for this is Reagan’s belligerence, and his firm commitment to deploy new American middle range nuclear weapons within Western Europe.

According to Kennedy, the current threat is due to the President’s refusal to engage any modification on his politics. He feels that his domestic standing has been strengthened because of the well publicized improvements of the economy: inflation has been greatly reduced, production levels are increasing as is overall business activity. For these reasons, interest rates will continue to decline. The White House has portrayed this in the media as the “success of Reaganomics.”

Naturally, not everything in the province of economics has gone according to Reagan’s plan. A few well known economists and members of financial circles, particularly from the north-eastern states, foresee certain hidden tendencies that may bring about a new economic crisis in the USA. This could bring about the fall of the presidential campaign of 1984, which would benefit the Democratic party. Nevertheless, there are no secure assurances this will indeed develop.

The only real potential threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations. These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign. The movement advocating a freeze on nuclear arsenals of both countries continues to gain strength in the United States. The movement is also willing to accept preparations, particularly from Kennedy, for its continued growth. In political and influential circles of the country, including within Congress, the resistance to growing military expenditures is gaining strength.

However, according to Kennedy, the opposition to Reagan is still very weak. Reagan’s adversaries are divided and the presentations they make are not fully effective. Meanwhile, Reagan has the capabilities to effectively counter any propaganda. In order to neutralize criticism that the talks between the USA and the USSR are non-constructive, Reagan will grandiose, but subjectively propagandistic. At the same time, Soviet officials who speak about disarmament will be quoted out of context, silenced or groundlessly and whimsically discounted. Although arguments and statements by officials of the USSR do appear in the press, it is important to note the majority of Americans do not read serious newspapers or periodicals.

Kennedy believes that, given the current state of affairs, and in the interest of peace, it would be prudent and timely to undertake the following steps to counter the militaristic politics of Reagan and his campaign to psychologically burden the American people. In this regard, he offers the following proposals to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Y.V. Andropov.

1. Kennedy asks Y.V. Andropov to consider inviting the senator to Moscow for a personal meeting in July of this year. The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA. He would also like to inform you that he has planned a trip through Western Europe, where he anticipates meeting England’s Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and French President Mitterand in which he will exchange similar ideas regarding the same issues.

If his proposals would be accepted in principle, Kennedy would send his representative to Moscow to resolve questions regarding organizing such a visit.

Kennedy thinks the benefit of a meeting with Y.V. Andropov will be enhanced if he could also invite one of the well known Republican senators, for example, Mark Hatfield. Such a meeting will have a strong impact on American and political circles in the USA. (In March of 1982, Hatfield and Kennedy proposed a project resolution to freeze the nuclear arsenals of the USA and the USSR and published a book on this theme as well.)

2. Kennedy believes that in order to influence Americans it would be important to organize in August-September of this year, televised interviews with Y.V. Andropov in the USA. A direct appeal by the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to the American people will, without a doubt, attract a great deal of attention and interest in the country. The senator is convinced this would receive the maximum resonance in so far as television is the most effective method of mass media and information.

If the proposal is recognized as worthy, then Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interviews. Specifically, the president of the board of directors of ABC, Elton Raul and television columnists Walter Cronkite or Barbara Walters could visit Moscow. The senator underlined the importance that this initiative should be seen as coming from the American side.

Furthermore, with the same purpose in mind, a series of televised interviews in the USA with lower level Soviet officials, particularly from the military would be organized. They would also have an opportunity to appeal directly to the American people about the peaceful intentions of the USSR, with their own arguments about maintaining a true balance of power between the USSR and the USA in military terms. This issue is quickly being distorted by Reagan’s administration.

Kennedy asked to convey that this appeal to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union is his effort to contribute a strong proposal that would root out the threat of nuclear war, and to improve Soviet-American relations, so that they define the safety of the world. Kennedy is very impressed with the activities of Y.V. Andropov and other Soviet leaders, who expressed their commitment to heal international affairs, and improve mutual understanding between peoples.

The senator underscored that he eagerly awaits a reply to his appeal, the answer to which may be delivered through Tunney.

Having conveyed Kennedy’s appeal to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Tunney also explained that Senator Kennedy has in the last few years actively made appearances to reduce the threat of war. Because he formally refused to partake in the election campaign of 1984, his speeches would be taken without prejudice as they are not tied to any campaign promises. Tunney remarked that the senator wants to run for president in 1988. At that time, he will be 56 and his personal problems, which could hinder his standing, will be resolved (Kennedy has just completed a divorce and plans to remarry in the near future). Taken together, Kennedy does not discount that during the 1984 campaign, the Democratic party may officially turn to him to lead the fight against the Republicans and elect their candidate president. This would explain why he is convinced that none of the candidates today have a real chance at defeating Reagan.

Like father, like son. Teddy’s old man was a Jew-hater who argued for the appeasement of Hitler.

“In London he supported the overtures of the Chamberlain government to Hitler and was generally noninterventionist.”

“During May of 1938, Kennedy engaged in extensive discussions with the new German Ambassador to the Court of St. James’s, Herbert von Dirksen. In the midst of these conversations (held without approval from the U.S. State Department), Kennedy advised von Dirksen that President Roosevelt was the victim of “Jewish influence” and was poorly informed as to the philosophy, ambitions and ideals of Hitler’s regime. (The Nazi ambassador subsequently told his bosses that Kennedy was “Germany’s best friend” in London.)”

That John Tunney was a deplorably vapid Kennedy wannabe when I was in high school in California. He even affected a Harvard accent to try to milk votes out of the Kennedy mystique. Fortunately he only lasted one term in the Senate. I only wish the same had been true of him mentor.

Again, the best way to find out what bad things Democrats have done (or would like to do) is to listen to what they accuse Republicans of doing. What Kennedy actually did was similar to what Bush 41 was falsely accused of.

You guys remember the Oscar Wyatt story couple years back? The Houston Oilman(and big Democrat) in Prison now over the Oil for Food scandal with Saddam????

It was reported that he influenced some Senator to become anti-war for his financial interest and it was beleived to be Ted Kennedy but never confirmed I beleive. the start of the “anti-Iraq war” movement.

His willingness to work with the Soviets parallels in spirit John Kerry’s secret negotiations with the Viet Cong during his honeymoon in Paris. It’s a sad commentary on the state of the post-60s Democrats.

Morally if not legally, the Andropov gambit was a betrayal of American independence and security by a high-ranking politician.

Why the question of legality? This was treason by Kennedy, plain, simple, and direct. There is nothing to dance around. Add to this the fact that it was done to enhance Democratic interests, and personal Kennedy interests, then you have the most craven sort of treason possible – if one is to construct a scale of traitorous acts. Kennedy reached a 46 on the Benedict Arnold scale (where Arnold, himself, only attained a 22).

Of course, we now have a Precedent who is eclipsing even Kennedy in his attempted treasonous destruction of our nation … Payment will come due, at some point.

these same documents indicted John F. Kennedy and the Cuban Missle crisis as well.

JFK got played like a pathetic fiddle, they had no respect for him and did that after reading weakness from him. We had alot more Nukes at the time than they did, they did not want a Nuclear war,just playingg of JFK’s weakness.

JFK then sent RFK in Secret to cut a deal, that deal gave the Soviets everything they wanted and JFK what he wanted(public perception of him being a strong leader, saving the nation from a crisis).

This is why Castro is still in power, that was part of the Deal. That we would never, as a matter of US policy remove Castro from power. So….to fight back at the soviets they chose a Jungle in the Pacific(Vietnam) instead and Castro has remained in power ruining Cuba ever since. We also removed the Missles from Turkey they wanted removed I beleive.

Yet, JFK gets lionized by Hollywood as a great ‘crisis’ leader which is the common perception in people’s minds about what happened.

No matter how accurate the report (and I suspect it’s quite accurate, now that the scumbag is dead), who in their right mind would have breathed a word of it?

To do so would have resulted in that person joining Jimmy Hoffa in a bazillion tiny pieces spread over the ocean…commonly known as shark bait. The Kennedys had but to make one phone call and that person would never be seen or heard from again.

It is hard to imagine having an ego so big that you are willing to undermine your country for your own self-serving ambitions.

Give 0 some credit for his honesty. He was being true to himself when when he didn’t wear the flag pin. And when did didn’t place is hand over his chest for the pledge (or was that Star Spangled Banner). And when he (intentially?) messed up his POTUS oath so he wouldn’t have to swear on the Bible. The others falsely pledge their allegiance to this country. Their only true allegiance is to themselves!

It should stand as a singular denunciation of Kennedy as a power-hungry, contemptible politician. Like in Chappaquiddick, the only reason it hasn’t is because of his family name.

The crazy thing is, this is exactly the kind of activity the Kennedys used to obtain their “name”. It’s almost as if there was some sort of inverter at play between them and the public….where treason became patriotism, crimes became tradition, and lying became a new language.

When apathy and non-involvement team up and become prevalent, a ruling class takes over and does what it pleases. History teaches us this fact time and time again! Nobody, and I mean nobody but a Kennedy could have gotten away with Chappaquiddick and the treason discussed here! We, the People must remain diligent and not keep voting for scum like Ted Kennedy that would sell this country down the river for political gain. We don’t need dynasties and ruling elites in this country! Our founding fathers did everything they could to prevent this. One can see that the mainstream media sold us a bill of goods even in the 60’s covering up for the Kennedys and other left-leaning politicians. We are in dire jeopardy people! We stand a real chance in losing everything this country has stood and fought for in the last 200+ years! We MUST vote the Democratic ruling elites out of office NOW! Conservatism and fiscal responsibility is the only paths we can take to insure this country will continue to stand as we know it!!

He typifies the Party of the Democrats and their quest to destroy America.

rplat on August 31, 2009 at 2:49 PM

Teddy Kennedy is the perfect epitome of the Democratic Party. Paternalistic, firmly believing that the rules he legislated into being for the public don’t apply to him, a stormy personal life with no legitimate grounding to make him into a decent human being….

Teddy Kennedy was a politician’s politician but he came up lacking when it comes to ethics, morality, or simple human interaction. Somehow, I don’t think the waitress sandwiches are going to be all that funny when standing in front of God.

To do so would have resulted in that person joining Jimmy Hoffa in a bazillion tiny pieces spread over the ocean…commonly known as shark bait. The Kennedys had but to make one phone call and that person would never be seen or heard from again.

The guy was the biggest living peace of excrement to walk the planet in my lifetime.

I did NOT know about this story – thank you Ed.

The reason I didn’t know about it was because I was a U.S. Navy submariner stationed aboard a fast attack sub out of Pearl Harbor at the time it happened. We were at sea during this period – all the time – fighting …

The fracking cold war.

Nice to see that Kennedy didn’t let me down – just like Mary Jo – all of us bubbleheads out there risking our lives to keep the cap on the Soviets and Teddie was back here pulling a Jane Fonda on us.

Ideology above truth! The truth being that consorting with marxist dictators who have nuclear missiles pointed at your country makes you a traitor. This somehow doesn’t matter because the liberal ends (drinking ambrosia in nirvana or something) justify the ends.

Most liberals just want equal outcomes for everyone, however, their leaders are dangerous.

Now that Ted Kennedy has been eulogized and buried, no one can complain about the examination of his life in the public sphere as inappropriate.

Ed, you truly are naiive. The Left still bristles at examination of FDR.

One might think that the press would take more interest in this subject.

Except that the Soviet Union was their version of Heaven.

Our friends at The American Thinker brought back an earlier Kennedy/USSR collaboration effort to try and stop the very-limited Carter military modernization and hand Iran over to the Soviets. Bonus item – James Simpson brought up Kennedy’s very-personal interest in getting FISA passed.

The “thing” is… our kids have been indoctrinated… everyone needs to make time to sit with their kids EVERY DAY and ask them, “what did you learn in school today?”

itsacookbook on August 31, 2009 at 2:50 PM

I was telling some friends this weekend that it is a testament to the greatness and bounty that of this nation that most people have been blissfully unaware of the corruption and decadence of the leftists. (they are not the only ones mind you). Its going to take a lot of work to correct this state of affairs.

You forgot Rockefeller and Kennedy corresponding as to when to leak bad Iraq news from the Senate Intelligence Committee so as to give John Kerry a leg up in the 2004 elections.

highhopes on August 31, 2009 at 2:50 PM

Yeah don’t get me started on how they deliberately, with the connivance of the media, undermined the war effort. We have truly hit the sort of political decadence which collapses societies.

Kennedy asks Y.V. Andropov to consider inviting the senator to Moscow for a personal meeting in July of this year. The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA.

Sounds a lot like the other Senator from Massachusetts, who negotiated illegally with the Viet Cong before he was ever elected to office.

Must be something in the water in Massachusetts, where the only Patriots left play football.

Sorry, in a perfect world, Kennedy would have drowned in a 1968 Oldsmobile and his passenger would have survived.

I guess that is a bit harsh since nobody would have died in that accident in a perfect world but I can only imagine what the United States would look like if Kennedy hadn’t had this shadow keeping him out of the White House. How much closer to the current state of chaos would we have dealt with in 1976 had Teddy and not Jimmy won the nomination. For this reason only (and it is no comfort) to see that one accident as a positive for the US.

You guys remember the Oscar Wyatt story couple years back? The Houston Oilman(and big Democrat) in Prison now over the Oil for Food scandal with Saddam????

It was reported that he influenced some Senator to become anti-war for his financial interest and it was beleived to be Ted Kennedy but never confirmed I beleive. the start of the “anti-Iraq war” movement.

and its stuff like this, the sheer fear of placing these evil idiots in power and as Commander in Chief, that we become more and more Moderate in hopes of winning elections for the main goal of keeping these Idiots out of power on Foreign Policy.

Don’t forget that Ted was expelled from Harvard for cheating (twice, if memory serves me). I know people make mistakes and can change, but this guy has a rap-sheet. They way liberals worshiped him, is it any wonder the white house is full of extremist criminals.

It was more of a Barney Frank kind of relationship. Joe Sr. got fired because his pro-Hitler/fascist comments got too embarrassing for a Presidential administration that was shameless. There was always doubt just how much those sentiments were at the root of Joe Sr’s thinking and one of the reasons why the sons he was grooming for public office had to go off and be war heroes.

1) are these Liberal Elites like Kennedy, Kerry, etc., really Commies that want the USA to be like Soviet Russia

OR

2) are they just Cynical Power players, willingly to Politicize anything to gain power, because it is known to work but in power they wouldn’t go the full nellie? Calculating that the Soviets(or Saddam or OBL) will leave us alone by getting what they wanted in return???

I go back in forth, this group is in power at the moment and sending mixed signals on this, from best I can tell.

You guys remember the Oscar Wyatt story couple years back? The Houston Oilman(and big Democrat) in Prison now over the Oil for Food scandal with Saddam????

It was reported that he influenced some Senator to become anti-war for his financial interest and it was beleived to be Ted Kennedy but never confirmed I beleive. the start of the “anti-Iraq war” movement.

jp on August 31, 2009 at 2:43 PM

The sad part is we can easily think of at least a dozen senators who could be responsible. Including the aforementioned Rockefeller and Kerry.

it should tar his image, but the left will probably set up a euphemistically-named award called the Ted Kennedy Election Freedom Act, allowing all Russians to vote in 2012. after all, we are a world community and not allowing Russians to vote would be disenfranchisement.